Shareholders, are you happy with dilution?

[dylanisabaddog 4,931]

9 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Oh good point,  I agree that probably does kibosh it as an idea. Although it’s not avoidance, given it’s something deliberately designed in the system by HMRC which they tell you how to do on their website via a helpsheet.

 

So, S&J do have to sell for full value or at least for enough to be able to cover the CGT on full value (which of course would be a lot less).

Avoidance is just what it says. Avoiding paying tax by taking an action to do so. 

Yes, they can sell the shares for what they want and will have to pay CGT on the market value. The market value of a football club is almost impossible to compute. It's effectively what someone is prepared to pay but we all know it's not that simple. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,931]

4 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

How is "full value" determined here, surely just use the Foulger sale price as precedent? If he sold 18 percent for £3m then surely can't begrudge Delia the £8m is that her stake is worth!

18% is a minority holding in what is an indebted loss making company. A controlling interest is worth far more. 

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Avoidance is just what it says. Avoiding paying tax by taking an action to do so. 

Yes, they can sell the shares for what they want and will have to pay CGT on the market value. The market value of a football club is almost impossible to compute. It's effectively what someone is prepared to pay but we all know it's not that simple. 

I think that’s daft.
 

If you pay into a pension scheme or an ISA that saves tax, and you’d say that’s avoidance? That’s silly. Or, tax avoidance is absolutely fine, morally and legally.

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,931]

1 minute ago, It's Character Forming said:

I think that’s daft.
 

If you pay into a pension scheme or an ISA that saves tax, and you’d say that’s avoidance? That’s silly. Or, tax avoidance is absolutely fine, morally and legally.

 

You're thinking of evasion 

[shefcanary 2,409]

2 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Yes, they can sell the shares for what they want and will have to pay CGT on the market value. The market value of a football club is almost impossible to compute. It's effectively what someone is prepared to pay but we all know it's not that simple. 

We know that the C Preference Share issue values the club at £100m (again, the shares were sold for £10m and can be converted to 10% of ordinary share captial - ergo 10 * £10m = £100m). In the absence of any information about the Foulger share sale to Attanasio (I refuse to believe this was only £3m - please, please can anyone present some definitive evidence to prove me wrong 🙏), the C Pref transaction sets a fairly easy to validate market value until we see what happens on 13th February. 

[Mello Yello 2,296]

3 hours ago, chicken said:

I feel sorry for all of the people who'll not have the scapegoats in high towers to now target, having given Attanasio their blessing to take over our club.

[Mengo 823]

3 hours ago, chicken said:

I feel sorry for all of the people who'll not have the scapegoats in high towers to now target, having given Attanasio their blessing to take over our club.

You'd better believe it. 

[Mengo 823]

28 minutes ago, Mello Yello said:

How does it feel .

 

[Google Bot 3,278]

5 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Foulger's stake was worth £16 million. Who in their right mind would be prepared to give up £13m just to allow an investment banker to store up more equity gains. Not a hard headed Norfolk businessman I'm sure. 

I was under the impression Foulger had some legal issues relating to his business and perhaps wanted to secure some solid funds - as long as he makes a profit vs what was put in that's more the key with shares isn't it?  I mean "Worth" comes down to what you're offered, and i'm not sure there's many people out there who want to throw £10m+ to buy those shares?

Attanasio may have been in early talks but not as sold on the idea to come into the club, whereas the chance to buy a perceived £16m of shares for £3m made it hard to refuse?

I mean, I know ****... But that's where my mind falls when reading all this.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

49 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

You're thinking of evasion 

Wrong way round. Avoidance legal, evasion illegal.

Edit: Think we are saying the same thing actually!

Edited January 30, 2023 by TeemuVanBasten

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

49 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

If you pay into a pension scheme or an ISA that saves tax, and you’d say that’s avoidance? That’s silly.

It is avoidance, nothing illegal about tax avoidance. There's even a field on a tax return to give details of avoidance schemes you've used.

Tax evasion is illegal. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

12 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

I was under the impression Foulger had some legal issues relating to his business and perhaps wanted to secure some solid funds

Well his main business Banham Poultry went into administration so wouldn't surprise me if he wanted a few million to retire on. 

[essex canary 496]

On 29/01/2023 at 23:51, littleyellowbirdie said:

I must say, I'd quite like a shareholding if I could get one, just for the fun of it. Been toying with the idea of joining the Canaries trust as a half-way house.

If we are into symbolic shareholding there certainly needs to be a solution which creates a better age balance at the AGM. Couldn't the Trust facilitate that?

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

14 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

You're thinking of evasion 

Ok if you think paying into a pension is tax avoidance then pretty much everyone who's ever had a job is doing tax avoidance so it's just the normal state of affairs and certainly nothing that should worry someone like Delia.

 

Presumably if she donated the proceeds to charity that would get tax relief and you'd think that's tax avoidance ?  Just silly.

 

I think the normal definition of tax avoidance is using loopholes or reliefs in the tax system in a way that is not intended by the system.  So paying into a pension is absolutely not tax avoidance nor is it tax evasion (which is simply dodging the system).

 

E.g. if you gave money to charity in a way that you are still able to benefit from the money personally but get tax relief, then I'd say that's tax avoidance.  But if Delia gives the gain she makes on selling her shares to a charity that's a genuine charity, that's not tax avoidance and would definitely be a good think IMO.

[dylanisabaddog 4,931]

12 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Ok if you think paying into a pension is tax avoidance then pretty much everyone who's ever had a job is doing tax avoidance so it's just the normal state of affairs and certainly nothing that should worry someone like Delia.

 

Presumably if she donated the proceeds to charity that would get tax relief and you'd think that's tax avoidance ?  Just silly.

 

I think the normal definition of tax avoidance is using loopholes or reliefs in the tax system in a way that is not intended by the system.  So paying into a pension is absolutely not tax avoidance nor is it tax evasion (which is simply dodging the system).

 

E.g. if you gave money to charity in a way that you are still able to benefit from the money personally but get tax relief, then I'd say that's tax avoidance.  But if Delia gives the gain she makes on selling her shares to a charity that's a genuine charity, that's not tax avoidance and would definitely be a good think IMO.

Sorry to be pedantic but putting your money in an ISA means that you avoid paying tax on the interest. If you avoid paying tax by legitimate means you are involved in avoidance. 

This may come as a shock to you but as @TeemuVanBastenhas pointed out above, HMRC does give approval codes to some avoidance schemes and you can confirm their use on your Tax Return. 

Using a loophole to use legislation not as Government intended may be avoidance or evasion depending on whether you get it right.

For advice on Evasion I'm afraid you'll have to ask a Tory! 

 

[nutty nigel 7,537]

9 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry to be pedantic but putting your money in an ISA means that you avoid paying tax on the interest. If you avoid paying tax by legitimate means you are involved in avoidance. 

This may come as a shock to you but as @TeemuVanBastenhas pointed out above, HMRC does give approval codes to some avoidance schemes and you can confirm their use on your Tax Return. 

Using a loophole to use legislation not as Government intended may be avoidance or evasion depending on whether you get it right.

For advice on Evasion I'm afraid you'll have to ask a Tory! 

 

Would it help if Wynnie applied for non dom status....

[dylanisabaddog 4,931]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

Would it help if Wynnie applied for non dom status....

I don't think Suffolk counts 😂

[essex canary 496]

47 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I don't think Suffolk counts 😂

Perhaps he could buy Mersea Island and move there.

[essex canary 496]

22 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I own shares in a few other non-listed businesses with 1000 to 5000 shareholders and all three in recent years and reduced paper communications (changed to email or via a dedicated comms page) and now just send the annual report each year as the printing and postage costs were getting out of control.

All three have sporadic (quarterly or six monthly) share trading and in two of the businesses the directors frequently buy out multiple smaller shareholders (say £500 worth and under), and I presume this is to reduce that administrative burden. Due to the cost levied on transferring ownership it would be cheaper per share for them to buy one larger shareholding, so I assume that is the motive.

Whereas NCFC operate the shareholders on a separate database.

If you own 1 share and you want a free home membership they give you one including for inheritors. But if you are an inheritor season ticket holder with 1,000 shares thereby saving them lots of admin they give you nothing.

That is why the times need to change.

[essex canary 496]

22 hours ago, GMF said:

The current shareholding situation is very much a product of the 2002 share issue, where you could acquire a minimum of 4 shares for £100. There’s approximately 5,300 shareholders owning 10 shares, or less. 78% of shareholders owning about 4.5% of the equity. It’s a logistical problem and there’s a significant proportion who don’t even have an email address, which compounds the problem even further. 

I think we established that under Robert Chase the Club went round the circuit. It is only such such  a logistical problem because there has been no such maintainance in recent times.

Besides the same person referred to in my previous response informed me that they didn't get the postal notification of last September's EGM. There can't really be any excuse for that given that their correct address is already used by the Club for season ticket purposes.

The £500 minimum and 3% voucher logic applied to bonds was far more sensible.

Edited January 31, 2023 by essex canary

[essex canary 496]

21 hours ago, GMF said:

@shefcanary leaving aside, for a moment, the potential gain in D&M’s shares over the period of their ownership, and having regards to their often stated view about not getting their money back / profiting from their ownership, there’s the possibility that they could pass them on for not much more than they paid for them.

That’s their choice, of course. However, in the wider context of this possibility, the question arises as to what fiduciary duty they have, if any, to all remaining minority shareholders. It’s quite one thing to be generous with their own money, should they choose, but what if that has wider implications for all other shareholders?

Thanks for that and the as always excellent contributions from @shefcanary, @Parma Ham's gone mouldyand @PurpleCanary and others.

Let's hope that point is fully digested by the Club. I dont think it was in terms of the bonds issue in which the rewards coming out of shareholders funds in some cases went to non shareholders with no priority to the former. 

 

[essex canary 496]

16 hours ago, Mengo said:

How does it feel .

 

Ring Them Bells.

[Mengo 823]

6 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Ring Them Bells.

 

[nutty nigel 7,537]

Did you invest in the bond scheme @essex canary?

[GMF 747]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Did you invest in the bond scheme @essex canary?

There was no wifi in the vacation location, allegedly 😉

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Whereas NCFC operate the shareholders on a separate database.

If you own 1 share and you want a free home membership they give you one including for inheritors. But if you are an inheritor season ticket holder with 1,000 shares thereby saving them lots of admin they give you nothing.

That is why the times need to change.

Why do you need a home membership if you're already a season ticket holder?

Have to say, this is a really niche reason you have for calling for regime change. Out of interest though, what was the clubs response to your complaint?

Edited January 31, 2023 by TeemuVanBasten

[essex canary 496]

27 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Did you invest in the bond scheme @essex canary?

I know of one man who got his application in before me. He was Chairman of the Club's Audit Committee at the time and I believe, though I could be wrong, he was the only person to be an Associate Director without buying from his own resources. That didn't stop him investing the same sum of money in the bond scheme as declared in the Annual Report or failing to mention his partner in the Annual Report who according to the wall listing at Colney joined him in investing in same. Perhaps he received a tip off email that the cut off was likely to happen soon.

I understood from Ben Kensell that he was consulted on my representations shortly after concerning a shareholder (which I believe he no longer is) and turned it down without further explanation. 

Not best practice in terms of accountability, transparency or fiduciary care in my opinion but equally others are entitled to their viewpoint.

[essex canary 496]

17 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Why do you need a home membership if you're already a season ticket holder?

Have to say, this is a really niche reason you have for calling for regime change. Out of interest though, what was the clubs response to your complaint?

Basically you shouldn't need a home membership if you are already a season ticket holder. Having said that I did achieve it last season when the Club granted me a home membership as that was a way to listen to a home match commentary when outside Norfolk which was not a facility available to season ticket holders that they assumed would be 100 per cent certain to be at Carrow Road.

A shareholder who has paid £100 for shares and claims a complimentary home membership gets a 25% return on their investment each year which is a little ridiculous.

The Football Ombudsman did consider the case but only the absolute aspects. They stated that they wouldn't consider fiduciary care issues such as those contained in my response to @nutty nigel above.

[essex canary 496]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

 

Not sure whether there is any enthusiasm for an enhanced Trust option as distinct from 'symbolic shareholding'? 

If there is some and if it  were to be actively supported by the Club, would it be an idea to give an option of donating a portion of shares currently held in favour of the Trust? (assuming MA is paying the true economic price for any he acquires).

[ncfcstar 292]

It must breed a huge sense of relief in you Essex that at some point in the next couple of years MA will take your shares off your hands, and all of this stress will finally be over.